but he did become prominent, and he did represent the illinois central, and he was involved in this a famous case about the railroad bridge, you know, and a steam boat running into it and who's responsible. so, you know, but, yes, he did -- first of all, he married a rich woman. that's a pretty good way to start getting ahead. [laughter] and second of all, he was, you know, he made money as an attorney, and by the 1850s his house -- he was one of the wealthiest people in springfield by the 1850s, that's true. but he wasn't wealthy like a plantation owner in south carolina or a big merchant in new york city, you know? he wasn't rich as it went at that time, you know? but he was, had come a long, long way from where he -- but he thought, he didn't lord it over poor people. he said, this is what should be available to everybody. everybody should have the opportunity to get ahead as i have done. he saw this as an opportunity,

as a question of opportunity that has to be maintained, and he came to see slavery as a barrier to people enjoying that. okay, i guess that's it. as we said, since we live in a capitalistic society, they are selling books over there which i'll be happy to sign, and thank you all for coming. [applause] ..

>> historian ron turner discussed his book washington:a life at the miami book fair international. he was the winner of the 2011 pulitzer prize in biography. this is about 45 minutes. >> washington was dignified, stoic, hero can fiercely devoted. but he was also a slave owner. and unyielding tax master, somewhat maine and a failure at business. unlike his peers, jefferson the middle matteson, hamilton and adams who were college graduates washington had only the equivalent of the seventh grade education. ron chernow was born in brooklyn and he is an honors graduate of yale and cambridge. he is considered to be one of the most distinguished commentator on politics, business, finance in america today. the st. louis post-dispatch has hailed him as one of the most

preeminent biographers of his generation and the new york times called him ron chernow is an elegant architect of monumental histories as we have seen in decades. in 2004 his biography of alexander hamilton won of the inaugural george washington book prize for early american history. ron chernow brings political perspective to the politics of today. listen to his words. president washington, like president obama, enters the office hoping for reasonable and sensible discourse, hoping to enjoy a period of non partisan politics. the two party system emerges rather rapidly from his own cabinet. hamilton and jefferson heading up different wind. like two years there has been a political honeymoon for washington do to his stature but once the attack start in the opposition they are ferocious

and relentless. washington is actually accused of being a british double agent all along during the revolutionary war. sound familiar? ladies and gentlemen, let's hear more about george washington from his biographer. join me in welcoming ron chernow. [applause] >> thank you for that wonderful introduction. always a thrill to be here at the miami book fair. in 1789, two months before george washington was sworn in as the first president he received a fascinating letter from his friend governor morris reporting for the first time on the sudden madness of king george iii. he said in the king's delirious

state, quote, he conceived himself to be no less a personage than george washington marching at the head of the continental army. then he added facetiously you have apparently done something or other that sticks most terribly in the king's stomach. washington had. who is this, uttered georgia who was such a legend in his own time and ever since that he actually managed to invade a feverish dream world of the range will george? there's a series of letters hamilton wrote about a quarrel late in the world of washington. and hamilton, and hamilton, washington was moody, irritably,

even something of a powder keg gaza. and more than a touch of youthful bravado the great man and i have come to an open rupture. he shall for once we tend his ill humor. i can remember his son. bill humor that hamilton meant to imply that the saintly father of our country was this smoky, volatile boss? this is sadly the not the truth about george washington and i hope it's so lavish and sufficient praise to washington's courage, 42, patriotism, integrity and a thousand other wonderful traits. this is not a debunking the book. my book is an effort to try to create the charisma that got lost some howling translation to

posterity. hamilton, his comments began to open a window into george washington's emotion. all these strong and powerful emotions swirling around inside him. needless to say it emotions he kept in check with formidable self control. i came to learn george washington was not this kind of were the figure, bland and a bit boring who has taken residence in the american imagination. revolutionaries are not made of such tame stuff. even though there have been so many books about washington wondered whether george washington, seemingly the most familiar character in american history, whose portrait we carry in our wallets was at bottom the least familiar figure and i thought perhaps there were other significant dimensions of his

personality that would enable a biographer to bring him to a vivid and a 3-dimensional life that would make him immediate and comprehensible to people. i am here to report after six years of intensive work on this book that i found the george washington who was passionate, complex, sensitively demand of many moods the google strong and fiery opinions, a hard-driving perfectionists who cloak of the immense force of his personality under that laconic and stoic facade that we know so well. what happened in the course of american history is the very laudable desire to venerate the father of the country, we sanded down the rough edges of his personality and turned it into this impossibly stiff and lifeless figure like the standing gilbert stuart portrait where he is standing with his arms rigidly thrust out. it stands to reason that that

wouldn't figure could never have defeated the british empire. the my guest military machine of the nineteenth century. could never have presided over the constitutional convention. could never have forged the office of the presidency. the man who was able to do all of those things must have been a force of nature ill though he kept that force carefully under wraps. in order to fashion a fresh portrait of washington the biographer has to begin by taking up a sharp machete and working his way through a dense jungle of myths and misconceptions about george washington and bar have discovered even well-educated americans's minds are still cluttered with all of these tales. let me retire the most egregious errors however trivial they may be to this highly cultured audience. you have already heard deep cherry tree story was pure

invention invented shortly after washington's death by an itinerant book paddler when washington died. there was a tremendous hunger for personal stories that would humanize him. he rushed into that vacuum with all of these fictitious tales. the cherry tree story has been unfortunate for many reasons. most obviously it has been used to terrorize americans schoolchildren for 200 years now. it has also created as we see a very misleading image of george washington as this cold and priggish character when he was anything but. another common myth as we already heard is the wooden teeth. it is a strange myths because digestive enzymes would rot. he started losing his duties in his 20s.

when he became president he had only one tooth left in his mouth. a brave and lowly -- lonely lower left bicuspid. he had a full set of upper and lower dentures' made. you see a little round hole where the bicuspid was. they were painful to examine. i can imagine how painful to where they would be scraping against his raw guns. they were made from elephant or walrus ivory and inserted with human teeth. in 1784, bought his teeth from slaves. this sound bullish. in the eighteenth century, it was retained to advertise that they were buying teeth. often the at that white tees are for white people so washington

was doing something egalitarian with nine teeth from his own slaves. what happened over time as the ivory aged, it developed a grainy look to the eyes of later generations, looks like wood. the most significant thing i discovered about the dentures is they were connected in the back by curved metal springs. the only way washington could have held them in his mouth was keeping his lips firmly compressed. this meant every time he opened his mouth, it would relax the pressure on springs and there was always the possibility that the chief would come flying out of his mouth weather is coincidental or not washington gave suspiciously large number of speeches the world one or two or three paragraphs in length. another common myth i find universal is george washington wore a wig. how did he get that very strange

and distinctive hair do? he flushed out the hair in twin wings on either side. i don't know how he got them to stand out. he sprinkled tower on his hair very, at the time especially if you look at portraits where he was wearing a black belt you would see a fine gray dust on his shoulders. was not dandruff. the portrait is showing the power had sprinkled onto his shoulders and most significantly he took remaining hair which he threw straight back over his head and tied in a black satin bow. the style that we would call ponytail was called acute in an even though washington's hairstyle look to as fairy queen and genteel, the queue in the eighteenth century was considered the manly and military look. anyone seeing washington walked down the street would say there goes the general.

everyone repeats that george washington was 6 foot 3-1/2. and i discovered as i looked at this that all rested on a single piece of evidence which was after washington died and he was measured for casket which was 6 foot 3-1/2. that seemed to settle the controversy. wrong. i want you to do an experiment when you go home tonight. lie down in bed on your back and relax. your feet will fall forward. your toes will point out word. rigor mortis will set in. doing the book i collected about 40 quotations from contemporary letters and diaries and people who commented, 35 of them guessed correctly. that he was 6 feet tall. then came the real clincher.

washington like most virginia planters, from london. he always described himself as a man who was 6 feet tall. one person you can't lie to about your height unless you want to end up looking like a laughing stock is your tail. we can consider the case closed. george washington was 6 feet tall which of course it was relatively tall for that time. we tend to associate washington with the revolutionary war. he spent five years fighting in the french and indian war. washington was so precocious he was a priority. by the age of 23 he was a colonel put in charge of all the military forces in virginia at a time when virginia was the most populous and powerful state in

the union. his perseverance and bravery were already the stuff of legend. young washington is not yet be wise paragon of later years. washington rebels against the british. but for personal reasons. the british denied him a royal commission in the army that he covets. the british sell him shoddy overpriced goods from london. at a time when washington is amassing real-estate, the british are bad for business, bad for your career. those sections and the company of the star of greatness even though there are a lot of admirable and extraordinary traits that foreshadow truly

wondrous things to come. the bane of washington's early years was not will george but someone more formidable, his mother. she was to speak frankly a very difficult woman. very querulous and self-centered. took no pride or pressure and her son's career. we have no comment about her praising the commander-in-chief or if he was alive when he became president. wedding of george and martha washington, no evidence she visited them at mount vernon although she lived in fredericksburg which is not that far away. historic rumor even attacked her as a possible tory during the war. george's father died when he was 11. george was the oldest end.

mary felt george should be taking care of her rather than pursuing his career. even in his 20s on the western frontier he suddenly received a letter from his mother one day saying she urgently needs a new dutch servant as if he is supposed to drop his regimental duties and go fetches for mothers some butter. late in the revolutionary war, washington received a letter from the speaker of the virginia assembly that says dear general, something has been going on in the virginia state capitol in richmond that no one had the courage to tell you about. your mother has been here, she applied to a special petition for emergency relief claiming poverty and hinting at abandonment by you know who, the commander in chief. washington was a dutiful son who brought his mother's beautiful

house and given her -- i speculate in the book that the first grade general george washington never had to do battle with was in fact his mother. the father died when george was 11. no wonder he doesn't start as a saint. and with the boston tea party and intolerable acts washington begins to realize all of his personal grievances simply reflect a larger political problem that the deck has been stacked against the colonists. and suddenly and rather gloriously all of his feelings about the british have been elevated into universal principles of freedom and liberty and justice. rather miraculously. he begins to find his political voice and that political voice is very strong and very

militant. if ever there was a man who was noble by circumstances or fired up by a just and righteous cause that man was george washington who has you shall see transcends his origins in a way that has few if any parallels in american history. if we know any events in the revolutionary war we know washington crossing the delaware and valley forge. this events in their way are misleading. washington deserves full credit for his daring in crossing the delaware and surprising the haitians at trenton. but i argue that washington was at best a middling general. he lost more general than he won. are also argue you can't judge this man by the usual scorecard of battles lost an won because this is a rare case in history that what he is doing between battles is arguably more important than what he does on

the battlefield. he single-handedly is holding this ragged army together for eight years in the face of constant shortages, of men, money, clothing, muskets, gun powder, on and on. only george washington has the strength of character, clarity of vision and tenacity of purpose to maintain the cause. we all know about the bleak winter at valley forge. there were many other winters that ridge just as bleak as valley forge. nobody but washington would have had the courage and stamina to hold the army together. holding the army together meant holding because to government holding the american nation together. if you don't think there's at least a grain of truth to the great man and great woman theory of history please read this book and write the letter and tell me who could have stepped in to washington's shoes in this battle.

there were other generals from a strategic standpoint who were his equal but they are jockeying for power, sidetracked by petty disputes. george washington had an inspired simplicity. if you gave him a gold to pursue he would harness all of the energy and fortitude in his nature to achieve it and a focus and discipline and drive that were truly unique. whatever his shortcomings as a politician washington was a genius. whatever shortcomings as a general washington as a politician was a genius. consider this stunning record. he was unanimously elected commander in chief by the continental congress. he was unanimously elected president of the constitutional convention. and he is twice unanimously elected president of the united states and by the electoral college. obviously that will never happen again. and mind you he does all these

things without the benefit of a single focus group or pollster or political action committee. he is just responding to his own instincts. because he never seemed to be grasping for power it people were that much more eager and the country clamored to have an come out of retirement before how reluctant he was. washington's presence in philadelphia was vital. the constitutional convention was held behind closed doors. washington's position as president of the convention reassures the skittish public outside the doors that no sinister, all is being launched inside. washington's presence is the assumption washington will be the first president that emboldens the delegates to create a powerful office of the presidency and after the revolutionary war there's a

quite understandable fear of excessive executive power. if you look at the constitution, article i of the constitution by design is about congress because people felt that was the people's branch of government. that should be preeminent. article ii about the presidency is by design very short and vague. washington has spent 28 years dealing with an internal squabbling congress realized no legislature could provide a coherent consistent leadership and washington realized the executive branch particularly the presidency that will spearhead domestic and foreign policy and we are still living with washington's legacy today. we assume as a matter of course that the president will be fine

the political agenda. washington creates the first cabinet. there were only three members. alexander hamilton, secretary of the treasury, and the secretary of war and thomas jefferson, secretary of state. everyone can agree the best cabinet we will never have by far, reassembles the american all-star. washington was not afraid to hire people who were smarter than he was a boat he was very smart indeed. he felt fully confident to control these had strong prima donnas. we were gazing nostalgia plea, it is right to do so in terms of the integrity of these people but it was a nasty political period. i did a piece in the wall street

journal on the founders. john adams, one continue in salt to decency and good manners. he is always an honest man, and son finn's absolutely out of his senses. is compared to adams and hamilton, a scotch peddler, hamilton, a superabundance of features, to drop off. doesn't get any stronger than that. hamilton, gave as good as he got. john adams is as wicked as he is mad. the only one who really rises above all of this partisan name

calling and mudslinging is george washington. at the beginning of his term he has a political honeymoon for a year or two but the two party system springs up and the opposition party attacks and. and restore a monarchy to -- and some of the charges today. it was the fame. he was not a glad handing backslapping personality. he was not a good extemporaneous speaker and wherever you went he gave a few well chosen words. you can see when he was president he made a tour of all of these states and send a delegation of dignitaries to the

money outskirts of town and one always arrive an hour or two earlier to bypass the. he would actually right in his diary that dignitaries were supposed to come and escort me out of town at 7:00 a.m.. i will get 5 a m and left before they arrived. with aphrodisiac power in full force, with beautiful women swimming around him. with the 13 states, he wrote every night in his diaries and number of women. there was a ball in my honor, 62 handsome and well-dressed ladies. there was a dinner in my honor and 73 fashionable and elegant ladies and the town's. the person who was doing them

nightly head count of the ladies was the father of the country. even in the privacy of his home he is a form of public property. he is warned after the war that he should get a special expense account to entertain people and doesn't listen. hundred, thousands of people descend on mount vernon. washington is impeccably polite man. he sees them all. the status line in his voluminous correspondence, in 1785. don and by only mrs. washington which is the first instance of it since my return from the war. i had been back for a year-and-a-half. first time he had dined alone with martha. he was not this cold and per gish character of the cherry

tree story. truly bored with his clothes on and his hair powdered. there was nothing puritanical about washington and that is referring to his famous infatuation. washington had a friend named colonel joseph ward who remarried at the age of 47. washington considered 47 a comically advanced age and he wrote the following letter to a mutual friend, quote, i am glad to hear my old friend colonel ward is under the influence of vigorous passions. he went on to suppose that like a prudent general had reviewed his strength, his arms and ammunition before he got involved in action. if it goes on.

let me advise him to make the first on set upon his fair lady with the vigor that the impression may be deep, it cannot be lasting more frequently renewed. it is not a line i was suggesting for inclusion in school textbooks but does give us a different take on george washington. the marriage to martha. it was not the loftiest marriage of all time but was productive and happy. she gave him financial security. she was the richest widow in virginia. she gave him emotional support. washington was rather repressed and needed an emotional confidante. washington was a cordial host but rather detached. she gave washington the warm, stable home life needed to accomplish these monumental tasks. i tried to give a portrait of this marriage because the two of

them made indescribable sacrifices for their country. always mentioned in passing that martha visited george in winter quarters during devoe war. it turns out that she spent half of the war within those winter stays with the spring and lasting five or six months. also to flesh out this private man behind the public facade i devote a lot of time to george washington as a slave holder. earlier generation biographers think a trivial inconsequential fact that he owned 300 human being. washington was deeply conflicted over the whole issue. he opposed slavery in theory but he was never able to make an issue of it in public. even in the founding here a slavery was the most divisive issue and washington being the embodiments of national unity

knew that this was a subject that he broached at his peril. i wanted to write a book in which washington's slaves are not simply faceless names mentioned in passing but to the extent that the documentary record allows it really emerged as full blooded human beings. i talked about his remarkable manservant believe we who was a great hunter and writer who accompanied washington every day tour in the revolutionary war and was actually very proud of that and liked to reminisce about the battles. and the favorite slave, the young seamstress who finally escape to freedom in new hampshire in later years and most of all the flamboyant hercules who was the master chef at the presidential household in philadelphia who slipped off to freedom in the waning days of

washington's second term. slaves constructed every inch of mount vernon, formed the basis of washington's fortune. they deserved to have a central place in his saga. this is not the story of a perfect man. there are plenty of defects as a slave holder and a businessman but this was a man who was capable of constant growth and constant self criticism. he was born in the 1730s into a world where slavery is both commonplace and unquestioned. his last and most visionary act in his will, he freeze the slaves. i want to pause with one fascinating story. there were 300 slaves at mount vernon. 125 were under the direct legal control of george washington. the other approximately 175 slaves were so-called dowry

slaves brought to the marriage by martha and illegally pledged to her children and grandchildren. what happens in his will, washington says the slaves should be freed. 125 slaves to be controlled should be freed after martha dies. washington had thought this through in immense detail. he provided a fund to train and educate his young slaves who would suddenly be free. he created a fund to take care of freed slaves who were old and trim. he overlooked one bigot glaring fein which was the moment he died, his will was published, everyone knew the terms of the will and every slave in mount vernon knew whether he or she was one of washington's slaves or one of the dowry slaves and what it meant was every time 125 slaves -- the second that lady is dead i am a free person.

martha was so unnerved by this situation and really felt her life was in danger that she consulted george's nephew who was an associate justice of the supreme court, you are right to be afraid and he said go ahead and freed those lanes now which is exactly what she did which was a very smart thing to do. a year after george washington died but the year before martha died those slaves were freed. just touching of a service of the rich and eventful history, a speech on washington should last as long as the revolutionary war and i am sure you are brimming with questions. i thank you for coming and i am happy to answer questions. [applause]

>> there is a microphone. please just line up. >> did you run across in the archives information regarding washington's view of extending the franchise and in his later years did you run across any of his feelings on how the results of the revolution turned out? did he have any misgivings? >> did he try to extend the franchise? no. that was not notable. what he did do, at the constitutional convention, one point that washington proposed, he was a neutral arbiter. 01 point he proposed was there should be one congressman for every 30,000 people. the house would be more numerous and more responsive to the

people. washington shared a certain federalist -- the people should elect the most intelligent and prosperous members of the community, for their interests. a special providence, not only overseeing the revolutionary war but also the constitutional convention and even has presidency that things turned out so well. >> would you care to comment, washington's relign supposedly done during the valley forge winter? the young private comes upon washington on his horse, and washington's kneeling and

praying -- >> are yes. you have all probably seen the pictures of washington praying on his knees and that, unfortunately, was another one of the inventions of the person who invented the cherry tree story. it's an implausible story not because of washington's religiousty, but washington was very private in his devotions, would never have -- you know, rather ostentatiously, in public, possibly in full view of his soldiers been praying in that fashion. in terms of washington's religious view, this, of course, has been a hot controversy about this. washington before the war was an anglican which meant that after the war he was an episcopalian. washington, there were a number of things the same pictures of washington there were a number of things about washington's christian beliefs and practices that were atypical. he always talked about

providence. he only referred to jesus by name two or three times in his entire career. at church he would pray standing instead of kneeling, refuting the mason williams story. he never took communion which for instance martha did regularly. very significantly. he did not call for a minister on his deathbed which again are of the did. i have the feeling that washington was deeply religious. there was not a battle in the revolutionary war that washington does not claim divine providence had been looking out for the country. papers are saturated with references to a province closely following over the fortunes of the country. is kind of a theological point

of view. >> thank you. >> and alexander hamilton you went with the marquis they lafayette's relationship with mr. hamilton. how did washington take the marquee and french outlook to help in the war to the extent there was any and how did he accept foreign support? >> with difficulty. all these french officers many of them had a self interested reason. they wanted to win battlefield glory and would go back to france and get a promotion. many of them cannot even speak english.

washington felt it was the bane of his life to placate these french officers who came over. the story with lafayette is interesting because he comes over at the age of 19 and the quips a ship with provisions and munitions. he goes to philadelphia armed with a letter from benjamin franklin, true please treat the young marquis very well. it is politically useful. the congress without consulting washington makes lafayette a major general. it makes him a major general which is the highest rank below commander-in-chief. we did it as an honorary title. lafayette goes and makes george

washington. a priceless letter to the congress saying i don't think that the young marty understand that the title is merely honorific. he is looking for a regiment to command. amazingly enough lafayette become such a resourceful and cheerless general that he becomes one of the major generals in the continental army. the story about lafayette to being a surrogate senate in washington, washington being a formal man did not like to be touched. we have eyewitness accounts that when lafayette would see washington he would, quote, for his arms around him and kiss his face here to here. wooley a young frenchman could get away with that with washington.

>> i was wondering why martha married george washington. as a rich widow i am sure she had many suitors and would be reticent of him wanting her just for her money. >> i don't think it was surprising that she wanted to marry washington. he is a successful general and the threat 29. he was a military hero in virginia and he was famous for his bravery. he was starting out, seemed to be a prosperous and successful young planter. then he became a member of the virginia house of burgesses for 20 years. he was closely connected with

the fairfax family. the fairfax family is the richest family in virginia and george washington is there young protege and washington was very tall and strapping. we think of stiff and rigid and craggy. jefferson said he was the greatest horsemen of his day. he was led the senate -- legendary as a dancer. he was a very social and genial personality. i find it completely understandable. he was eager to have children. >> no cherry tree?

>> knows cherry tree. i want to thank you for coming. this is wonderful. >> thank you for coming. >> winner of the pulitzer prize in biography. for more information on all the 2011 pulitzer prize winners go to pulitzer.org. visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here on line. take the offer or book title in the search bar on the upper left side of the page and click search. you can share anything you see on booktv.org easily by clicking share on the upper left side of the page and selecting the format. booktv streams for 48 hours every weekend with top nonfiction books and authors.

booktv.org. >> up next, the winner of the 2011 pulitzer prize in general nonfiction present a history of cancer. it recounts the earliest documentation of the disease and profiles the first patients receive chemotherapy patients. this is an hour-and-a-half. >> very personal relationship to the bookstore. i was an undergraduate from a foreign country. when i could get my spirits up i would write for this book store. and spend time here and there is something wonderful about fein is coming back so thank you for having me here. and thank you for those wonderful words of praise. my favorite phrase that i receive for the book came this

morning, someone send me a note from some blog her who says are there cliffs notes? it is my lifelong ambition to write a book where there are cliffs notes. if anyone is inspired to write them please let me know. i would be delighted. i thought i would begin today rather than talking about the content of the book i thought i would begin by talking about the process. something you don't get from just reading the book itself but behind-the-scenes look, what motivated some part of the book and how they got written. i have to offer a note of apology that this book when it was handed and in its draft form was three times its flanks. by necessity a lot of

information had to be cut. there is a fundamental, my editors said 500 pages is the final limit. no more. we ended up with 600 and that was a bargain. but nonetheless, i have to start with a note of apology saying not every story could make it into the book so i welcome other attempts to write for a very histories of the disease that we part of our lives. that said, in the process of writing the book. most pivotal moment happened sometime early on when i was confronted by the fastness of the challenge. here you have a history that spanned 4,000 odd years. 1 hundred of the characters move in and out of the book.

there are scientific terms and political terms end in the middle of all of this this kind of whirl of stories. i was having a conversation with my excellent editor, she said something pivotal. we were talking something completely different. in the end people if one forget the book publishing industry and the vast paraphernalia that allows a book to come in to play, the actual product, the printer, the business of marketing, in the end a book is an amazing instrument by which one author sitting alone in the room can talk to one reader sitting alone in the room. that comment resonated with me deeply because i thought to myself if you forget for a

second the vast paraphernalia of medicine, the cat can -- cats can and the national institute of cancer institute. the crown jewels of medicine that exist in this country and others in this end the act of medicine is a mechanism by which one person sitting alone in the room can talk to another person sitting alone in the room. that analogy was very deep for me because it reminded me what was essential or not essential and the essential piece of it was much like a book, medicine is about storytelling. medicine begins with the most dramatic act. if you take away all the paraphernalia ultimately medicine begins with someone saying tell me your story. what happened? that is the first thing that happens when you meet the doctor. you begin to unpack a story and as i make a claim in the book doctors can tell a story back to

you. this ancient interchange, one of the most ancient interchanges that we have as human beings. that itself, that process begins the unburdening of an illness. long before you receive your first dose of whatever medicine you will or will not receive it is the and burdening of a story that is the first -- it seems something important will happen in medicine. once i come to this realization inspired by the, and it became clear to me, could write this book. there was a vast history here but it could be written through the eyes of patients and written by telling stories. if i could tell stories that began at whatever point, i could flesh out these stories, what

seemed an insurmountable problem, how does one tell this history, would become solvable which is tell the history by moving from a story to story focusing on those who were right there and experienced it most directly. that was the solution in principle of the problem but that raises a second question which is how does one find these stories? how does one and cover the story of a woman who experienced breast cancer in the 1950s. i recount a moment in time in 1950 when a woman calls up the n.y. times and she says i would like to place an advertisement for survivors of breast cancer. the new york times society litter gets on the phone and says we can't put the words

breast and cancer in. this was the survivors' group with diseases of the chest. this was 1950. when the new york times came to write about my book, make sure you print that because it is a reminder for all of us that we need to be humble about what can or cannot be achieved. this was the background. the word that can't be uttered. the word that is whispered about. the question was what were the stories? one of read that came early on was i knew somewhere in this story would be the story of one of the most remarkable women in recent intellectual history. ilan many other thing is directed her philanthropic

energy. and entrepreneur, a person who then directed an enormous amount of philanthropic energy towards transforming the geography to personal the landscape of american -- affair was one central character spinning through the story it would be very lasko. very quickly i found sidney farber who was married -- scientific collaborator. if she gave political legitimacy to the war on cancer sidney provided scientific legitimacy for award on dancer. the book begins with sydney farber was a pathologist. we begin in the 1940s. he was dr. of the dead because primarily a pathologist in the

1950s specialize in children's pathology. typically bodies of children who died, the laboratory was no bigger than 12 feet by 12 feet the personal kind of a frozen cube at the bottom of one of the buildings so that is where we are in 1948. farber became interested in trying to find a mechanism or understanding of the disease which was extremely lethal. that was acute leukemia. that is where the story begins. it not always affects children and usually it was almost uniformly the one hundred% mortality. they would be diagnosed and would die within the span of a

week or two. farber became interested in this and one of the reasons was that leukemia unlike many other forms of cancer could be counted. science begins with measurement. whenever you begin with measurement you begin a scientific activity and this was before cat scans. it was hard to counter the size of an internal tumors because it was buried inside. leukemia is a tumor of the blood. you could draw a drop of blood and do a bone marrow -- you could see the death or life of the cell and therefore you could say this was an objective mechanism by which one would have a conversation, increase or decrease of leukemic cells. farber figure out one of the things that would be interesting would be to find a chemical that

would kill these leukemic cells and launch the history of chemotherapy but the -- he fantasized about such a chemical. there was an indian chemist born in india named yellow suber row who came to harvard to study the school of tropical health. he didn't know as we know there's nothing tropical about boston. so he was stuck in the middle -- he arrived in winter. he was stuck in the middle of winter and couldn't find a job and found a job cleaning urinals. that was the best job he could get. somehow through a series of exchanges he found a job in the department of biochemistry and made several fundamental discoveries. he discovered adp, and several discoveries but because he was

indian he was denied tenure and was sent from harvard -- send himself to a pharmaceutical company in new york with a sub branch of the american company and he took a problem which was a very -- great interest to him that he began to synthesize many synthetic versions of vitamins. one fight and he was interested in was forecast. in the past an english physician, a young woman. the figure out folic acid, the growth of normal growth. particularly in pregnant women efficiencies didn't have enough folic acid and your blood would grow normally. fiber began to put these things